xmatax wrote:I'm not really sure how the public opinion will be in 3 months or 6 months from now. If shootings keep happening then I expect the super-charged politics of banning stays alive..

I don't want to pick on you xmatax. I'm sure you are a decent, level headed person, but the sentiment expressed in the quote above is the one many gun owners are expressing. It may be a correct estimate but it seems to place the concern about our guns above the sorrow over the loss of life.

I think a lot of gun owners are more worried about public opinion and its' effect on gun ownership than the growing trend of mass shootings. Please don't misunderstand me, I do not support the ban of any guns in current civilian circulation. I see the solution to be far removed from the question of guns alone. I just think we as gun owners need to be less defensive and more concerned with the well being of all people. Every time some psycho strolls into a crowd of innocents and starts shooting, many of my gun owning friends begin to put defiant and inflammatory posts on facebook and internet forums. They barely acknowledge the tragedy, if at all, and they run to the closest gun show to buy another rifle and pat each other on the backs for being so patriotic. I think it lacks humanity and compassion.

This is not said in support for gun bans or outdoor shows that would draw the line between one legal rifle and another. Nor am I accusing you xmatax, of being insensitive to the loss of life. It is just a call for all of us to take a long look at how we view these questions and consider to the possibility that humility and compassion for the innocent may not be a better posture than defiance and that our first thoughts after a shooting should be centered on the dead and their families and not on public opinion.

JPH I don't take offense at all and I agree the loss of life is tragic and I in no way meant to take away from those affected by it. It was merely stated to point out the fact that the level-headedness of individuals is almost thrown out the window in the hours and days immediately following a tragedy and instead of thinking with their heads people tend to gravitate towards their hearts and are led by pure emotion. And you are also right in this goes both ways as you have stated.

I will agree there are things that need to be done about firearms (stronger background checks being one), but in my opinion banning any one single type of gun will not prevent such tragedies from happening they will be carried out via other means such as bombs or poisonous gasses or other methodologies. I think we can both agree there is a deeper reason behind what is happening than just guns or no guns and until that issue or issues in themselves are addressed the mass loss of human life will always remain in the realm of possibility.

Fact: The more people that own guns the more the likelihood of a gun related incident...It's just the law of averages but I don't believe in these circumstances it relates to the instrument of crime as much as it relates to the person and until we as a whole can put a grasp on what causes these things to occur, the tragic loss of life will become more and more prevalent in our lives (unfortunately).

"Fact: The more people that own guns the more the likelihood of a gun related incident...It's just the law of averages" i agree with most of what you say, but not this. False Fact. If I have one unbalanced person bent on mayhem, in a room full of a hundred guns, I still get one incident. He just gets to take his pick of weapons. The limiting factor is not the gun, but the man. The number of weapons available is immaterial. THAT IS THE POINT OF WHY GUN BANS DON'T DO ANY GOOD! All you have done is limit his choices, not changed his intent.

The only real difference between a good tracker and a bad tracker is observation. All the same data is present for both. The rest is understanding what you are seeing.

Kelleroy...I see your point but the counterarguement with regards to cars instead of guns...less cars means fewer accidents because statistically there is less chance of it happening. As the number of guns increases so does the chance of accidents related to guns.

I'm not saying the mass shootings increase just the chance for more gun related accidents.

"the counterarguement with regards to cars instead of guns...less cars means fewer accidents because statistically there is less chance of it happening. As the number of guns increases so does the chance of accidents related to guns..."

Car accidents and gun CRIMES don't equate though....

if you are looking at ACCIDENTAL shootings (which is how you stated it), then there will definitely be a direct relationship with incidences and number of guns being used...

A person who makes the choice to pull the trigger on an innocent is throwing the law of averages to the curb. The whole point of statistics for ANY type of occurrence being valid is that there is no intentional skew to one direction or another. If there is an influencing factor, than your data becomes non-significant.

"When a hunter is in a tree stand with high moral values and with the proper hunting ethics and richer for the experience, that hunter is 20 feet closer to God." ~Fred Bear

xmatax wrote:Kelleroy...I see your point but the counterarguement with regards to cars instead of guns...less cars means fewer accidents because statistically there is less chance of it happening. As the number of guns increases so does the chance of accidents related to guns.

I'm not saying the mass shootings increase just the chance for more gun related accidents.

As deebz stated (well) accidental shooting, or car accidents are not the question. these are intentional. Stats are completely useless, because chance is not a factor. And you are not dealing with guns hitting guns, you are dealing with guns being used for evil. It would be more accurate to count only cars that hit trees. One car, one incident. And it doesn't matter if it was the 4X4 or the spider, the pick-up, or the school bus. It is reckless operation any way you look at it, not evil cars.

The only real difference between a good tracker and a bad tracker is observation. All the same data is present for both. The rest is understanding what you are seeing.

Deebz wrote:"the counterarguement with regards to cars instead of guns...less cars means fewer accidents because statistically there is less chance of it happening. As the number of guns increases so does the chance of accidents related to guns..."

Car accidents and gun CRIMES don't equate though....

if you are looking at ACCIDENTAL shootings (which is how you stated it), then there will definitely be a direct relationship with incidences and number of guns being used...

A person who makes the choice to pull the trigger on an innocent is throwing the law of averages to the curb. The whole point of statistics for ANY type of occurrence being valid is that there is no intentional skew to one direction or another. If there is an influencing factor, than your data becomes non-significant.

I interchanged incidents and accidents but meant the same thing in each scenario. More cars equals more accidents and more guns equals more accidents which both are true and i never meant that statement to be taken solely with mass shootings which are intentional vs car accidents. But after rereading the post I made I can see where my verbiage caused confusion in the point I was making.

THE GUN SHOW HAS BEEN CANCELLED! They are blaming a boycott by the NRA (wrong) and high emotions, for "postponing" the show. So, let me see....we have roughly 1200 booths ready, and roughly %20 pulled out because of the second amendment, and the exclusion of the AR-15. This causes the complete shutdown of the show, because "management" throws in the towel.Now we have lots of presenters without a venue, a venue, with a very big no-show, fans without a show, a local economy that is in need of the revenue, and why? Because "Management" made a bad call, screwed the pooch, and got crapped on big time. It seems, that what the show needs is new management. If only there were another management *caugh* D&DH.COM[b][/b]caugh*that could step in and start their own show, they could likely get the same venue cheaply due to the recent no-show vacancy, and there seems to be a long list of companies that could be ready to go on a moments notice....there are even a list of some here that have expressed their second amendment concerns, I think there are about 207 of those companies, seems all we need is "Management" Anyone have any ideas as to who could step forward to fill that role? Caugh*D&DH.COM*caughAnyone at all?

The only real difference between a good tracker and a bad tracker is observation. All the same data is present for both. The rest is understanding what you are seeing.

The British were coming to confiscate the ARMS of the colonial militia. That is where the shooting started. It wasn't the only reason by far, but it WAS the reason why the actual shooting started at that time and place.

Basically the Britsih were coming to take their guns, and the colonial militia said (in so many words), "FROM OUR COLD DEAD DEAD FINGERS". And they meant it.

kellory wrote:THE GUN SHOW HAS BEEN CANCELLED! ... Anyone have any ideas as to who could step forward to fill that role? Caugh*D&DH.COM*caughAnyone at all?

First off, the Eastern Sports and Outdoor Show in Harrisburg was never a "gun show." It has been more like the old trappers' rendezvous where everyone came out of the mountains for a celebration, good times, friendly competitions, trading, and food. Guns have been included, but not so much the buying and selling of them as in a gun show, and they haven't been the main aspect of the show.

Second, it's not a bad idea for a good organization that knows and supports hunters to start a show of this size, but any organization that decides to get into the show business can't act quickly to make a decision. It's not unprecedented that a magazine take over an outdoor show. Field & Stream bought the Midwestern series of deer & turkey expos, but that was a case of an up and running show series that was simply bought. The promoter continued in transition.

In replacing the ESOS anyone, including D&DH, would actually be starting from scratch. It's way more than management. Reed Exhibitions has all the vendor contact info, contractual arrangements with the host site, and lots of history running very large consumer shows. No one could just step in and "manage." Besides, D&DH is part of Krause/F&W. It might be a good idea to extend the brand this way, but lots of corporate discussions would have to take place before making a decision to do that.

But, it would be nice of a good magazine would hold a large national show or two -- maybe one in the east and one in the west.

For now, the future of the ESOS, or whatever replaces it, is uncertain.

Steve.

When the Everyday Hunter isn't hunting, he's thinking about hunting, talking about hunting, dreaming about hunting, writing about hunting, or wishing he were hunting.